‹ All questions
Paper 1 · 2020 · 30 marks
Using Source 2, evaluate the view that state funding of political parties would be preferable to a situation in which a party can win a general election because it has more members and income than other parties.
Political Parties
Source
Source 2 shows information published by the House of Commons on the income and membership of political parties in Great Britain. The source then reflects on the significance of this data and questions its implications.
Case for state funding of political parties
[Table: Central party income and membership in Great Britain, 2018] Labour Party: income 55,793,000 / 540,000 members Conservative and Unionist Party: 45,947,000 / 124,000 members Liberal Democrats: 9,710,000 / 99,200 SNP: 5,800,000 / 125,000 Green Party: 2,472,000 / 39,400 UKIP: 1,739,000 / 23,600 Plaid Cymru: 1,262,000 / 8,000 There are big differences between the incomes of different political parties and where they source their funds. This creates a fear that a 'rich' party can 'buy' an election because other parties lack the funds to make their case effectively. Often parties' income and their donors are unknown until after a general election. State funding, in which each candidate's election campaign is funded by the state, might marginally increase the taxes people pay; but it would make general elections a contest between equals.
Case against state funding -- the system is evolving naturally
The income patterns of political parties are changing -- for example, membership fees have now substantially replaced trade union donations as Labour's main source of funding: whereas the Conservative Party continues to rely heavily on private donations. There are big differences between the incomes of different political parties and where they source their funds. The organic shift in Labour's funding base -- from trade union donations to mass membership -- suggests the system can self-correct without state intervention, and that parties with genuine popular support will naturally attract the resources to compete.
Mark scheme: agreement
AO1: The source shows big differences between the income of the top two parties and the rest. State funding would provide a base of fairness in an open market forum. AO2: This would fund parties on a more equal basis and encourage politicians to concentrate on their voters not donors. The SNP who contest only 10% of the seats have a disproportionate income stream. AO3: We can conclude that state funding is preferable to some parties doing better because they can raise more money. AO1: The current system lacks transparency, as the source says that details of donations arising after the election has taken place. AO2: Private donations may mean that certain sectors of society or rich individuals can have a disproportionate influence on the elections, which is largely hidden from the electorate. AO3: The view that political parties can be bought distorts and undermines the democratic process. AO1: As the source argues, the increase to taxes would only be very slight for state funding to be established. AO2: The UK could afford this amount to ensure corruption is avoided. AO3: We can reach the verdict that establishing a fair democracy is a price well worth paying.
Mark scheme: disagreement
AO1: The source shows that state funding is not necessary as the current system works. AO2: The two main parties are funded in proportion to their popularity in the polls. AO3: We can conclude that the current system works and change to state funding would be unpopular. AO1: The source shows that the Labour Party model, high membership leading to high income, is an excellent model for a democracy. AO2: By encouraging people to join a party by charging lower membership fees, democracy can be reinvigorated, without state funding. AO3: We can conclude that raising funds via increased membership and political momentum is preferable to state funding. AO1: The source suggests that state funding is not necessary as it is possible to be electorally successful without high levels of funding. AO2: Political parties with limited funding have made a major difference to UK politics such as UKIP and the Green Party. AO3: Success in elections, we can conclude, is not just about money but talent and capturing the public's mood. We can make a judgement that income does not mean votes are bought but that supporters contribute because they agree with the political party.
Open in the full browser (plan, examples, save)
Saved